The Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) said Mike Russell consulted neither the union nor English teachers on the move, which it predicted would narrow the range of books and poems to which pupils are exposed.

Mr Russell also came under pressure from other education groups to “come clean” over allegations from senior teachers he forced through the policy by overruling experts tasked with designing the new school curriculum.

The Daily Telegraph reported how he is accused of personally intervening in the curriculum’s design to order that pupils learn more Scottish instead of English literature.

Mr Russell yesterday denied interfering, attributing the approval of a mandatory question on Scottish literature to a group chaired by a junior minister in his department, Alasdair Allan.

But the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association (SSTA) and the Scottish Council of Independent Schools said the “manufactured” policy was wrong and urged him to provide written evidence on how it was created.

Larry Flanagan, general secretary of the EIS, said the union shares the minister’s desire that pupils study more Scottish plays, novels and poems.

“We are opposed, however, to his plans to introduce a compulsory Scottish text question at Higher and National 5. Regrettably, neither the EIS nor English teachers generally were consulted on this matter,” he said.

“Past experience has shown that the use of specified texts in the manner proposed tends to narrow the range of literature studied. The EIS would urge Mr Russell to listen to teachers on this matter and to think again.”

This newspaper reported allegations yesterday from three senior teachers, who did not wish to be named, that Mr Russell overruled the Qualification Design Team (QDT) responsible for drawing up the new English curriculum.

They said QDT members were not opposed to teaching Scottish literature, but did not support making this mandatory. Despite Mr Russell’s denials, they yesterday stuck by their version of events.

“The point is that there is only so much time and space available in the school curriculum, especially at Higher,” one added.

“The danger is that the study of texts in the English canon will have to give way to the study of Scottish texts on the prescribed lists.”

Alan McKenzie, acting general secretary of the SSTA, said: “It would be useful for Mr Russell to make a statement and come clean where it (the policy) came from.

“I was surprised by it because seminal Scottish works are studied as a matter of course. This seems to be a manufactured policy which is totally unnecessary.”

But the Scottish Government said the English QDT did not minute its meetings and the policy was the product of a separate body, the Scottish Studies Working Group, chaired by Mr Allan.

This was not a team of English specialists, but it chose to ignore the QDT’s recommendation that introducing mandatory Scottish literature was wrong.

A spokesman said: “There was absolutely no interference in the work of the Design Team looking at Higher English, and claims of members being called to an additional meeting are false.”